About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10
covergirl. >>> next week the u.s. supreme court will hear challenges to appropriatition 8 and doma. arguably the two most for cases involving gay rights ever to go before the high court. already right now as i speak to you, a line of people looking to attend the arguments. began form three day ace go. first case on tuesday will be collingsworth v. perry. proposition 8. at issue is whether the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment prohibits california from defining marriage as a union between a man and woman. in 2010, u.s. district court ruled that prop 8 was unconstitutional. then a little over a year ago, the ninth circuit court of appeals upheld that decision. president obama's justice department submitted an amicus brief last month urging the court to overturn prop 8 saying the president and attorney general have determined the classification based on sexual orientation should be subjected to heightened scrutiny for equal protection. on wednesday, the court will hear united states v. windsor, challenge of the defense of marriage act. whether section 3 of doma, defines marriages be
's proposition eight. let's start with doma. it's the federal law that defines marriage as a union between and a man and a woman. it keeps gays from get iting th same rights. president clinton signed doma into law in 1996. he now says it should be struck down. avery freedman from cleveland, good to e see you. >> hi, fredricka. >> and richard herman, good to see you as well. avery, you first on this. two cases before the supreme court. let's begin with doma. how much is at stake here? >> i think this is one of the great cases that the the supreme court will hear this term. that and prop eight. but doma which was compromised legislation and signed by bill clinton back in 1996 has always been questionable in terms of constitutionality. and two federal appeals courts have held that that law that restricts personnel rights that is by the federal government violates the constitution. it violates the equal protection law. in terms of the significance of it, it's really march madness. this is so important and so exciting because you have the solicitor general arguing against the constitutionality
calling doma constitutional. >> it's not their rule to decide what's constitutional. doma was a law passed by the house and senate and signed into law by president clinton. and in our system of government, the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the supreme court does. >> and it will. starting tuesday. a constitutional law expert, nyu, and the president of founder of freedom and the right leaning heritage foundation. thank you to all of you for being here. folks who haven't followed this case as closely, how did we get here and why of these two cases being heard so close together? >> beginning with the second question, serendipity they're being heard together. winded they're way up through separate passes of the country to converge at the supreme court. the first case, perry case heard tuesday is a prop 8 case a state restriction on same-sex marriage. whereas the case herd wednesday, the defense of marriage act, whether or not federal benefits vts to be afforded to the same as couples married in their home states. >> the pew research poll showing support for same-se
clinton, who signed that into law say that d.o.m.a. should be overturned and senator rob portman is citing his familiarity with this issue, his son is gay. how do you think this is going to play out in the 2014 midterms and then subsequently 2016 general election? >> well, alex, we've seen a clear shift in public opinion on this issue over the last ten years. it's been quite dramatic. all sorts of polls now, including the reuter's poll last week shows that the public supports gay marriage even civil unions. even in the south, the majority supports gay marriage or civil unions together. democrats are united on this issue. they say it's a big winner, especially among younger voters, and there's a real sort of active debate within the republican party about how to play this. there's a lot of people saying we've got to stop emphasizing these social issues because they are not working in our favor. however, if you're going to have a divisive 2016 primary, rick santorum is going to want to talk about that and that could really hurt them. >> do you think that will be the case in 2016? if you look
of the defense of marriage act. a few days before the supreme court will look at both doma, defense of marriage act, and california's prop 8. it also puts her in line with top democrats heavily weighing 2016 bids, of course. could this mean a move for her already, eventual candidacy? chad griffin, president of human rights campaign, and joel walsh editor at large for "salon" and msnbc political analyst and laughing, and joyously involved in fascinatine inine ining piec. hillary clinton has come forward in a very well-produced video. very well done. and i listened to it all today and it's well done. here's why question. how did it happen? we were talking, the producers and i, when is she going to do it, how is she going to do it? >> i knew the clint nts for a long time. i grew up in arkansas. over the last few years every chance i had when i was around people in leadership positions, i urged them to fully evolve and come out in support of marriage equali equality. that includes former secretary clinton sometime clint clinton. sometimes in the last ten days or so she reached out to do this video
that while republicans may grouse about d.o.m.a. and prop 8, the best thing that could happen if the supreme court strikes down both, he writes a supreme court decision imposing gay marriage nationwide will give republicans a useful scapegoat to impotently shake their fists at, they will say they wish they could continue their fight against gay marriage but the activists on the supreme court have made it impossible and gradually, everyone who cares about stopping gay marriage will grow old and die. >> i think he probably is right about that, good analysis. better for them if the issue is somehow taken off the table. the thing they most hate is when the supreme court preempts legislation at the state and federal level. i mean it's interesting a dynamic now, the issue is moving faster than anybody could have ever anticipated. and republicans in this case thought it was going to be a political advantage for them has quickly turned into a liability. the question of at what point a politician gets patted on the head for being courageous and at what time they deserve a little slap for being late t
and the bipartisan legal counsel to continue this fight, $3 million of taxpayer money to oppose doma? >> well, look, this is a position of our party. but, you know, our point in the report, luke, is that, you know, when i was asked at the national press club i think one of the reporters asked me and he said are you still going to fund, you know, rob portman? my response is, of course we're going to help rob portman. he's a good conservative republican. my appointment, luke, i'm not going to get into this sort of back and forth with leadership, but what i will tell you is i think our party needs to have the attitude that if i disagree with you on one issue, it doesn't mean that you're a lousy republican. it means that you're a good republican. it means we agree on most issues and we need to unite our party. we can't build our party if we're going to cut out certain pieces and certain parts that we may not agree on 100% on but we have to grow. so we have to grow through additional -- >> mr. chairman, you're a relatively young man, 41 years old. do you think the republican party -- >> i'm pretty young
at mhpshow.com. that's our show for today. i'll see you tomorrow to talk about the supreme court case, doma, and prop 8. all that on mph tomorrow. coming up "weekends with alex witt." is saving money better than not saving money? [ kids ] yeah! ok. if you saved enough money, what would you do with it? i would buy an island made out of candy. an island made out of candy? it would be like sand full of sugar. sand full of sugar? the water could be made out of like soda, and when you take a shower it could be made out of like hot fudge. ooooo. what about the animals? what would they be made out of? um, i'm assuming they'd be made out of candy? [ male announcer ] it's not complicated. saving is better. switch to at&t and your family can save up to 100 dollars a month with mobile share. ♪
defense of marriage act or doma which defines federal acknowledgment of same-sex marriag marriages. at stake? federal marriage benefits for those who are legally married. the arguments laid out before the nine justices this week will establish a furd precedence for the next chapter for the fight in marriage equality. this is a watershed moment. but it is just part of a long and continuing struggle because the struggle has already been quite long. in the summer of 1969, five days of riots sparked by the aggressive anti-guy police action in new york city founded a battle cry that helped to launch the guy rights movement. a year later, a couple in minnesota was denied a marriage license because state law limited marriage to persons of the opposite sex. their case made to the u.s. supreme court back in 1972. it was dismissed without so much as a written opinion. the court ruled that same sex couples have no constitutional rights married and that the legal challenge itself failed to raise a substantial federal question at all. but the struggle continued. it would be another 14 years bef
alimit of all the different parties on that. >> if the high court decides on doma, what does that mean for opponents for same-sex marriage? is that a settled issue, but is it like obama care and we'll still be talking about it years from now? >> we'll still be talking about it. let's let the states decide one at a time and that's probably the best way. public opinion is definitely shifting. maybe ten years from now, they all will be there. >> if the states decide, then we have patch work of laws where you have folks who can get married in california, but if they move to nebraska, are they recognized there? whatever your politics, there needs to be a settled universal law. >> for a while, gay rights advocates have argued that this shouldn't be settled in the courts, because he wanted a victory of public opinion. he wanted states one by one to have their people come over to the right side of the issue in their view. but i think that even andrew sullivan have come to the point where they say the majority of americans support same-sex marriage and those who oppose it are becoming less and
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)